No one is crying or claiming that 1940s England was 100% white. This is a strawman that you've created in order to insult others. If anything, the overemotional and irrational one here is you.
In 1951, according to the best available data, about 99.8% of the population was white. Most of the non-white population was Asian. This leaves 0.05% of the population who came from West Africa and the West Indies. Some of that group would have been South Asian in origin, and 1951 was six years after the end of the war and three years after the start of the Windrush. So less than 0.05% of the population was black during the war. England wasn't 100% white during the Blitz, but it very nearly was. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England, see 'Estimations of white and non-white population in England and Wales, 1951-1968')
The Blitz is a key foundation of modern British identity and myth-making, and the central narrative of the Blitz was that Londoners worked together to survive, overcoming class differences and living cheek by jowl in bomb shelters and on crowded Tube platforms. McQueen has gone to a great effort to put aside real people's lives and instead insert race and racism into an event that wasn't about race at all. Pointing out that this is obsessive and inappropriate isn't racist or privileged. I'm mixed-race myself, and I'm utterly sick and tired of the focus on skin colour and "white privilege".
Instead of whingeing about others' opinions, make the positive case for focusing on a black person during the Blitz. Out of the stories of 9 million Londoners, why is this the one that must be told? Remember that it's a fictional story - the boy never existed - while there's a plethora of true stories of tragedy, excitement, heroism, love, heartbreak, terror, etc. No one can claim that this is a story that demands to be told, because it never happened. All this focus on race does is divide us further.
reply
share